I care, you care, and many of us here on lemmy care. We should work on how to coordinate ourselves together rather than try to change minds.

I’ve tried, a lot, to change minds. I started with the most difficult person, and recently a new hire at work is kinda centrist-left and I tried to convince him. No matter whether it’s a nazi you’re talking to (ahem… the first one) or a liberal, minds can only change themselves. They have to want it, you cannot hack their brain and override it.

I gave up, because even the people who are closest to me politically seem to move further to the right when faced with uncomfortable reality. They don’t engage with icky thoughts like “What if police killed an innocent man?”. They rationalize it to keep their comfort zone intact. “Well, if they just followed police instructions…” blissfully unaware of many cases like Daniel Shaver.

You point to an example that breaks their rationalization, and they will diminish it. “Oh that cop made a mistake”. Point to many examples and they suddenly got to go wash their hair. People’s psyche protects them from stress.

And that is the default mindset in this society. Avoidance of discomfort and inconvenience. Fear of the unknown. They want their life to be neat and happy and to all make sense. They don’t appreciate it when someone tries to take that away from them.

Do you think there’s something about people like us that makes us more accepting of challenging our own worldviews? I have some thoughts but I’ve written enough.

Sorry, I don’t know anyone who uses WhatsApp.

(This is a lie, for comedy, sometimes known as a joke when not explained, but it has to be explained, because there’s a preponderance of idiots on the internet, hence the meme)

I actually didn’t expect that! Thanks for trying that for me.

Thank you for engaging in good faith.

To see if it also censors that.

Also ask chatgpt about it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Ask it about the MOVE bombings

Ask it about the Kent State massacre

Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib. Proved to me that we were the baddies back in 2002. This is not a revelation.

deleted by creator

The problem is you’re comparing labor to labor. Try owning property, that graph has exponential growth with no cieling, you know, like cancer.

Things like this move me to imagine a world completely devoid of ads. “But how would you discover a product you didn’t know you needed?” I don’t care. I would go without that product. That is preferable to me.

You know what else they could have done, as a compromise? Make the ad screens partially transparent, by stippling the pixels, or by having glass sections, or by turning the LCD completely transparent for part of its refresh… there are many ways to not be anti-consumer garbage meant only to jump in front of eyeballs.

The way that’s worded implies that the only way it can hurt Windows is if Windows sucks. Subtle and true. Do better Microsoft. Or don’t. We don’t care, we’re just doing our own thing.

This comic is propaganda and misinformation.

If they survive multiple generations, then they survive. I give that a less than 50% chance (“unlikely”). Selecting for the wealthiest 1% is selecting for 1) elderly 2) psychopathic 3) men. Only 10% of the population of the richest 1% is female, and I would assume they are also older than the average person. I’m putting a lot of weight on the psychology of the wealthy and the state that we’ve “collectively” (it was them) put this planet into.

People run technology. People have knowledge. These things die when people die.

The richest 1% are not those people. We’d have a better chance with a random selection (only 12% of billionaires are female!)

The internet, electricity, running water, sewage, do not work unless someone is operating and maintaining them. Manufacture of supplies to maintain them depend on coordination across the globe, and further specialized skills.

Effectively, technology will be reset for at least a generation to pre-electricity levels. This is survivable, sure.

But, the way I see it, if this event happened instantly or close to it (months, even) the survivors would not be prepared to shift immediately to that lifestyle. This is where I would predict mass deaths.

I’ve also been assuming these people are not together in one place, and without air travel they would be limited to a shorter range. I suppose if they were all smart enough, they might congregate in a few different places. There’s a chance if they cooperate and don’t fight each other. Humans can do that. The richest humans, though?

These scenarios are identical in my opinion. They’ll likely dwindle and die in a short time anyway. The wealthy are not particularly well suited to rebuilding society, nor are they at a disadvantage, they are just average people who (used to) have wealth.

Actually, little side thought occurs to me here, they can’t access their wealth unless it was stored physically, and even then, only if our concept of currency hasn’t changed. In my version of this scenario, I’m assuming the 1% still have useful currency, banks still work, etc.

So we got a bunch of more or less equally rich people, who may have access to resources, but their laborers and security forces are Thanos-snapped away.

Hmm…

My guess is that the ones who have weapons will establish a sort of warlord apocalypse scenario. Wouldn’t be much different from any other random selection of 1% of the population. The resources you hold and the skills you know matter even more when society disappears. It will start with 1%, the sudden shock of not having most other people to provide for each other will quickly halve that. The fighting over resources will kill a bit more. Eventually there will be an environmental disaster like a drought, and that’s it for humanity.